Is tolerance intolerant?

[The Grand Nudger]

The fact that poverty maps directly to race in the US is just another shining example of why we need affirmative action.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The fact that poverty maps directly to race in the US is just another shining example of why we need affirmative action.

Of course. People get "trapped", because systems are set up that way.  Most impoverished neighborhoods are developed in a way that they will fail.  Without outside groups to come in and fight for them, it's very hard to escape that trap.  It's circular.  Lack of education and resources = You don't know how to get out of the trap, and even if you did, you couldn't afford what it would cost to fight off the oppression.  In most cases the conclusion is to accept your circumstances and not fight.

[tackattack]

The above describes Racial apathy. I am not unwilling to address forms of racially disparate treatment. It's not that I'm towing some racial majority line, or that I'm subtly hiding my anti-integrationalist feelings behind a socially acceptable indifference. It's a null position. You are wrong but let me be specific for clarity. I already stated that I can appreciate that people are classifying machines and tend to categorize people based on biases and that includes myself.

It's not that I object to any programatic solutions to address social wrongs, just the application of discrimination to equalize discrimination. Racial neutrality isn't racist in it's intent or effect. That's the very reason I started this thread.

Let's see if I can make this clearer. Person A is an Atheist, they hold that there is no proof of God. It's a neutral position. But in action (put on your SJW pants) that becomes railing against religious mechanizations with vitriol. That pushes the pendulum back the other direction. Which galvanizes the other side to push back. The more intolerance, injustice and emotionalism applied by both sides just keeps the pendulum running. I would like to think that eventually it will rest peacefully in the middle, but that's only when both sides give up feeding the problem with more problems, and isn't realistic.
In this post (http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_...657-16.php) I disagree with the conclusion but agree with his quote of King

we will have to repent in this generation not

merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence

of the good people” (King Jr. 1996:745)

The problem you're not seeing is that you claim your SJW side is right. My argument is really about the tools used. There are bad people on both sides. Inaction is less overt but bad as well. Simply by starting this discussion I do promote action/discussion/change, in myself and others. It's also about what tools would be better than fighting fire with fire.

[The Grand Nudger]

The above describes Racial apathy. I am not unwilling to address forms of racially disparate treatment. It's not that I'm towing some racial majority line,

You are.  I mean, i could go on and on about the pervasive and subtle ability of the status quo to conscript the otherwise unwitting, and I could point out that the objections you're fielding aren;t actually an example of that (they're intentional propaganda) even though your fielding them likely is....but what would the point be?  I'd just be wrong, culture warring you...and that reaction itself....well....lol.

or that I'm subtly hiding my anti-integrationalist feelings behind a socially acceptable indifference. It's a null position.  You are wrong but let me be specific for clarity. I already stated that I can appreciate that people are classifying machines and tend to categorize people based on biases and that includes myself.

Bit of a quandary you're in, then.  

It's not that I object to any programatic solutions to address social wrongs, just the application of discrimination to equalize discrimination. Racial neutrality isn't racist in it's intent or effect. That's the very reason I started this thread.

Affirmative action isn;t discrimination.  A point expounded upon but glossed over.  

Let's see if I can make this clearer. Person A is an Atheist, they hold that there is no proof of God. It's a neutral position. But in action (put on your SJW pants) that becomes railing against religious mechanizations with vitriol. That pushes the pendulum back the other direction. Which galvanizes the other side  to push back. The more intolerance, injustice and emotionalism applied by both sides just keeps the pendulum running. I would like to think that eventually it will rest peacefully in the middle, but that's only when both sides give up feeding the problem with more problems, and isn't realistic.
In this post (http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_...657-16.php) I disagree with the conclusion but agree with his quote of King

...and now we got thoughts about sjws.  Gee, who'd have seen it coming?  The actions of people seeking a greater equality don;t cause the other side to "push back"..they do that out of apathy or antipathy..and the fact that we find ourselves in this situation is an effect of that to begin with, ranging back long before anyone railed against them.  

we will have to repent in this generation not

merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence

of the good people” (King Jr. 1996:745)

The problem you're not seeing is that you claim your SJW side is right. My argument is really about the tools used. There are bad people on both sides. Inaction is less overt but bad as well. Simply by starting this discussion I do promote action/discussion/change, in myself and others. It's also about what tools would be better than fighting fire with fire.

The sjw side is right, and bitching about the means used to acheive a greater equality has always been the refuge of those seeking to oppose it. "Here here my good man, ofc we want a greater equality, but you have to go about it the right way. So let's stop all this disruptive ruckus, shall we? You're only making it worse. " 



But yeah...sure..sure...#BOTH SIDES!

[Angrboda]

I think what's missing from your analysis, tack, is that different sides have legitimate and real interests which may or may not be served by tolerance. If you just pursue tolerance for its own sake, independent of these concerns, then you likely do so in error. In another thread, I asked the question as to whether the polarization in American politics can be reversed, and noted various things contributing to that polarization. This includes the perception that letting the other side win may contribute to very real harms. One simply cannot "give-in" to the other in the face of such. Tolerance is at bottom a mechanism that is used for shaping behavior. Sometimes intolerance may be justified in the service of a greater good. If your position is not unconditionally in favor of tolerance, then I apologize for what is something of a straw man, but I haven't seen a lot of balance in your discussion of tolerance.

Anyway, doing my best to stay out of this, so take it for what it's worth.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The above describes Racial apathy. I am not unwilling to address forms of racially disparate treatment. It's not that I'm towing some racial majority line,

You are.  I mean, i could go on and on about the pervasive and subtle ability of the status quo to conscript the otherwise unwitting, and I could point out that the objections you're fielding aren;t actually an example of that (they're intentional propaganda) even though your fielding them likely is....but what would the point be?  I'd just be wrong, culture warring you...and that reaction itself....well....lol.

or that I'm subtly hiding my anti-integrationalist feelings behind a socially acceptable indifference. It's a null position.  You are wrong but let me be specific for clarity. I already stated that I can appreciate that people are classifying machines and tend to categorize people based on biases and that includes myself.

Bit of a quandary you're in, then.  

It's not that I object to any programatic solutions to address social wrongs, just the application of discrimination to equalize discrimination. Racial neutrality isn't racist in it's intent or effect. That's the very reason I started this thread.

Affirmative action isn;t discrimination.  A point expounded upon but glossed over.  

Let's see if I can make this clearer. Person A is an Atheist, they hold that there is no proof of God. It's a neutral position. But in action (put on your SJW pants) that becomes railing against religious mechanizations with vitriol. That pushes the pendulum back the other direction. Which galvanizes the other side  to push back. The more intolerance, injustice and emotionalism applied by both sides just keeps the pendulum running. I would like to think that eventually it will rest peacefully in the middle, but that's only when both sides give up feeding the problem with more problems, and isn't realistic.
In this post (http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_...657-16.php) I disagree with the conclusion but agree with his quote of King

...and now we got thoughts about sjws.  Gee, who'd have seen it coming?  The actions of people seeking a greater equality don;t cause the other side to "push back"..they do that out of apathy or antipathy..and the fact that we find ourselves in this situation is an effect of that to begin with, ranging back long before anyone railed against them.  

The problem you're not seeing is that you claim your SJW side is right. My argument is really about the tools used. There are bad people on both sides. Inaction is less overt but bad as well. Simply by starting this discussion I do promote action/discussion/change, in myself and others. It's also about what tools would be better than fighting fire with fire.

The sjw side is right, and bitching about the means used to acheive a greater equality has always been the refuge of those seeking to oppose it.  "Here here my good man, ofc we want a greater equality, but you have to go about it the right way.  So let's stop all this disruptive ruckus, shall we?  You're only making it worse.  " 



But yeah...sure..sure...#BOTH SIDES!

Remember when I told you that "part of me likes you"?  This is why.

[tackattack]

---

The above describes Racial apathy. I am not unwilling to address forms of racially disparate treatment. It's not that I'm towing some racial majority line,

You are.  I mean, i could go on and on about the pervasive and subtle ability of the status quo to conscript the otherwise unwitting, and I could point out that the objections you're fielding aren;t actually an example of that (they're intentional propaganda) even though your fielding them likely is....but what would the point be?  I'd just be wrong, culture warring you...and that reaction itself....well....lol.

or that I'm subtly hiding my anti-integrationalist feelings behind a socially acceptable indifference. It's a null position.  You are wrong but let me be specific for clarity. I already stated that I can appreciate that people are classifying machines and tend to categorize people based on biases and that includes myself.

Bit of a quandary you're in, then.  

It's not that I object to any programatic solutions to address social wrongs, just the application of discrimination to equalize discrimination. Racial neutrality isn't racist in it's intent or effect. That's the very reason I started this thread.

Affirmative action isn;t discrimination.  A point expounded upon but glossed over.  

Let's see if I can make this clearer. Person A is an Atheist, they hold that there is no proof of God. It's a neutral position. But in action (put on your SJW pants) that becomes railing against religious mechanizations with vitriol. That pushes the pendulum back the other direction. Which galvanizes the other side  to push back. The more intolerance, injustice and emotionalism applied by both sides just keeps the pendulum running. I would like to think that eventually it will rest peacefully in the middle, but that's only when both sides give up feeding the problem with more problems, and isn't realistic.
In this post (http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_...657-16.php) I disagree with the conclusion but agree with his quote of King

...and now we got thoughts about sjws.  Gee, who'd have seen it coming?  The actions of people seeking a greater equality don;t cause the other side to "push back"..they do that out of apathy or antipathy..and the fact that we find ourselves in this situation is an effect of that to begin with, ranging back long before anyone railed against them.  

The problem you're not seeing is that you claim your SJW side is right. My argument is really about the tools used. There are bad people on both sides. Inaction is less overt but bad as well. Simply by starting this discussion I do promote action/discussion/change, in myself and others. It's also about what tools would be better than fighting fire with fire.

The sjw side is right, and bitching about the means used to acheive a greater equality has always been the refuge of those seeking to oppose it. "Here here my good man, ofc we want a greater equality, but you have to go about it the right way. So let's stop all this disruptive ruckus, shall we? You're only making it worse. " 



But yeah...sure..sure...#BOTH SIDES!

---

1. So what if my view matches a majority view, it doesn't make it any more/less valid. I'd like you to address it to point out my biases which I hold very valuable. I won't assume you're wrong if you would like to address it directly. If not continue to blow it off.
2. Affirmative action in practice can unjustly discriminate.
3. The actions of both sides do galvanize sides. Extremism breed extremism and especially in the realm of emotionalism. You don't really believe reactions happen in a vacuum do you? push back happens out of selection bias and antipathy. Apathy is not a cause of anything other than indecision, it is a null position. There is some injustice in inaction inherently so most see inaction as a negative, but it doesn't galvanize simply for being a null position instead of an extreme.
4. If you want to leave out SJws then let's talk about the nuclear race or use atheism as an example. The methods you use to get justice do NOT always justify the means. I'm not seeking refuge from anything, nor have you pointed at anything that would cause cognitive dissonance.

---

I think what's missing from your analysis, tack, is that different sides have legitimate and real interests which may or may not be served by tolerance. If you just pursue tolerance for its own sake, independent of these concerns, then you likely do so in error. In another thread, I asked the question as to whether the polarization in American politics can be reversed, and noted various things contributing to that polarization. This includes the perception that letting the other side win may contribute to very real harms. One simply cannot "give-in" to the other in the face of such. Tolerance is at bottom a mechanism that is used for shaping behavior. Sometimes intolerance may be justified in the service of a greater good. If your position is not unconditionally in favor of tolerance, then I apologize for what is something of a straw man, but I haven't seen a lot of balance in your discussion of tolerance.

Anyway, doing my best to stay out of this, so take it for what it's worth.

---

I'm not saying there aren't real justifications for either side, nor am I saying that affirmative action is only about intlerance. I specifically said you can pursue tolerance and factor in those concerns. I'm just not buying into the emotional value or intolerance as a successful tool. The problem I see with your stance, as stated is that standing for what you believe in isn't giving-in or letting the other side win. Tolerance is a mechanism, as is intolerance, emotionalism and polarization. There are times when intolerance might be justified or even successful, I just don't think it's the best tool to use. If I'm been ignorant or overly biased, please point it out directly as I do strive for a balance.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. So what if my view matches a majority view, it doesn't make it any more/less valid. I'd like you to address it to point out my biases which I hold very valuable. I won't assume you're wrong if you would like to address it directly. If not continue to blow it off.

The problem isn't that your view matches any demo, but the contents -of- that view.  That much ought to be obvious, at least insofar as you having this discussion with me.  

2. Affirmative action in practice can unjustly discriminate.

If you say so.

3. The actions of both sides do galvanize sides. Extremism breed extremism and especially in the realm of emotionalism. You don't really believe reactions happen in a vacuum do you? push back happens out of selection bias and antipathy. Apathy is not a cause of anything other than indecision, it is a null position. There is some injustice in inaction inherently so most see inaction as a negative, but it doesn't galvanize simply for being a null position instead of an extreme.

There were racist trolls in the world long before there were sjws.  Apathy is the cause of a great deal of misfortune, always has been.

4. If you want to leave out SJws then let's talk about the nuclear race or use atheism as an example. The methods you use to get justice do NOT always justify the means. I'm not seeking refuge from anything, nor have you pointed at anything that would cause cognitive dissonance.

I don't expect it to cause to dissonance.  Dissonance only arises when a person consciously realizes that they've got two cross purpose ideas floating around in their heads.

You're of the view that tolerance is intolerant and affirmative action is reverse discrimination. You seem like the kind of guy who has just the one set of ideas floating around in his head...lol.

[tackattack]

Since you are not bringing up specific points let's look at some in relation to education:
A. Colleges legally should use race in admissions only when necessary.
B. Banning race-based affirmative action is a right of the community to choose and it has been done at some colleges.
C If it bears out that colleges Texas A&M, U of GA, U of Washington, U of Florida, U of Michigan, etc. have as much diversity then
D. it's not necessary if it's been proven successful elsewhere

I support affirmative action when it drops legacy preferences/support, reaching out to inform/support high achieving, low income students, adding socioeconomic demographics alongside performance metrics, better testing, clearer admission guidelines, more transparent communication, family education factors for first-generations and guaranteeing admission for top graduates across the state equitably to counter under-resourced schools. All of that can be done without playing the race card though.

I don't think that the top 10% of the majority "earned" their place, and that should be fought against. If affirmative action is the best tool for that then so be it. I just don't think it's being applied in a way that's completely effective and undoing inequality. I know that the playing field isn't even. I believe where you stand is while racial prejudice exist for to individuals both sides of the race card it's not racist if blacks do it because white's are in the majority and racism is about institutions? Is this your stance?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, but it's right on script for a person who only has the one set of ideas floating around in their heads.  : shrug :